Results 161 - 180 of 196
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Lookn4ward2Heavn Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187457 | ||
Doc, 1. I respectfully submit that you read and assume too much into a person's comments. 2. I respectfully but strongly contend that unless (a) these men are infallible in their interpretation of Scripture, and (b) they have the power to judge me to hell, I (a) am not obligated to agree with them, and (b) need not fear to make the determination that they are erred. As such, your comment seems to have no bearing on the issue being discussed, at least, as far as I am concerned. |
||||||
162 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187475 | ||
Regeneration is the presence of Christ entering by the Holy Spirit into the one who turns to God in faith. However, what that change entails in a metaphysical sense the Bible gives no instruction and, therefore, it is beyond me. Whatever regeneration entails, it is not because man is physically or spiritually unable to believe God or obey the law but because: (a) man refuses to trust God, and (b)he cannot obey the law in a manner that God approves. Both cases are the result of his fallennes by virtue of Adam's transgression and their continued participation in such fallenness. I admit, there is a change; but that transformation is due to the presence of the Holy Spirit entering within the one believing and entails, as far as I can tell, no physical change in the substance of the heart or the spirit. Of course, when Christ comes, all things will be made new and, in that day, there will occur some sort of physical transformation (mainly by the total extraction of sin?) of heart and spirit. In 1 Cor 2, we do learn that man is incapable of spiritual discerment but it is not the result of your interpretion of the text since it goes beyond what the text actually says, at least, as I read it. I already discussed where your interpretation of the phrase, "God may grant them repentance," is mistaken, which the TEV clarifies. Eze 36:26 refers to Israel as a nation and it is primarily in that context it ought to be interpreted. As such, the language is metaphorical with respect the transformation of the heart from stone to flesh. The "new spirit" is due to the promised presence of the Holy Spirit. Again, this is with respect to Israel as a nation and not individuals. To extend the text to mean individual persons, however, poses no problem. It is still metaphorical, as far as the heart is concerned. No one's heart is stone, at least, to my knowledge. The "new spirit" primarily involves the entrance and domination of the God's Spirit dwelling within man's (keeping in mind that we are not told how He will do it, only the fact that He will). If you are speaking of a moral and spiritual change without suggesting a physical transformation of the heart or a change of substance of the spirit, I can agree; otherwise, I do not. From my reading of the Bible, what you suggest is unwarranted by the Bible verses cited. |
||||||
163 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 193386 | ||
Real Quick...took me awhile, Hank, to get to read this. I can agree with you regarding translations and paraphrases, however, I do find Bibles like the TEV helpful in understanding what is meant; and I have no problem attempting to discover the author's intended meaning (although, admittedly, disagreement with you in essence. As far as repentance is concerned, my position is that it is not something God does for sinners or that a sinner must be "born again" before he can repent. Acts 5:31 and 2 Tm 2:25 speaks of opportunity. Rom 2:4 indicates one being led by God's demonstration of kindness to repentance. Repentance, if it is Biblical (as I understand the Bible), also involves more tha just a "change of mind or attitude" as well as more than just sorrow; it also involves the act of turning away from what is being repented of and turning towards God. One can change their mind or attitude about something but not necessarily act according to that change. As such, it is not repentance. Furthermore, God commands men everywhere to repent and all have the ability, as created, to do so. Just my understanding of the Bible. No reponse is necessary. |
||||||
164 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 193387 | ||
Real Quick...took me awhile, Hank, to get to read this. I can agree with you regarding translations and paraphrases, however, I do find Bibles like the TEV helpful in understanding what is meant; and I have no problem attempting to discover the author's intended meaning (although, admittedly, disagreement with you in essence. As far as repentance is concerned, my position is that it is not something God does for sinners or that a sinner must be "born again" before he can repent. Acts 5:31 and 2 Tm 2:25 speaks of opportunity. Rom 2:4 indicates one being led by God's demonstration of kindness to repentance. Repentance, if it is Biblical (as I understand the Bible), also involves more tha just a "change of mind or attitude" as well as more than just sorrow; it also involves the act of turning away from what is being repented of and turning towards God. One can change their mind or attitude about something but not necessarily act according to that change. As such, it is not repentance. Furthermore, God commands men everywhere to repent and all have the ability, as created, to do so. Just my understanding of the Bible. No reponse is necessary. |
||||||
165 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 193388 | ||
Oops! Sorry about the double entry... | ||||||
166 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187808 | ||
Ps25, You said, "Those who are genuinely born again, have been sealed, by the Holy Spirit, before they actually were saved." Unless I am reading it wrong, the verse in the KJV actually reads the opposite: "after ye believed, ye were sealed." The NAS reads: "after listening to the...gospel...having believed, you were sealed." This verse, at least to me, shows God's act of sealing in the Holy Spirit as occurring after one listens and believes in Christ and not before. |
||||||
167 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187838 | ||
Please note, the KJV reads, "after ye heard...after that ye believed, ye were sealed". (1) It looks "past tense" to me but that's no indication of "before the foundations of the world". A simple reading of the verse shows the sealing occurs after hearing and believing. (2) The book of Acts gives practical demonstrations of the Spirit's reception (and, therefore, sealing) occcurring after one has heard and believed the message. Also, none of the apostles are shown in Acts to have preached a sealing - the receiving of the Spirit - occurring from eternity past as you suggest, but clearly shows the opposite. (3) Ep 1:4. It seems to me you are misreading the verse, effectively ignoring the testimony of v.13 (as it reads) together with that of the whole epistle. (a) The "us" refers to believers, that is, those who after hearing, believed the gospel. (b) The stress of the divine choice refered to here is not of specific persons but of a specific pourpose: that believers should be "holy" and "without blame" in order to stand before "him in love". (4) An interpretation, as you suggest,(1) upends the clear reading of the verse; (2) reverses the way in which the text shows salvation is to be procured ("order of salvation" as some call it); and (3) proposes what seems to be an invented explanation of the Greek grammer to support an otherwise foreign understanding of the the plain reading of the verse in question. (5) What can be "biblically refute(d)" is not "what this verse says" (since the translation is not ambiguous) but your interpretation of it. |
||||||
168 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187852 | ||
Ps25, Are you familiar with or a scholar of NT Greek? 1. Apparently, you have not read my note correctly regarding Ep 1:13. The main point is that the verse does not read that God Spirit-sealed us "before the foundation of the world." That is you interpretation, which goes beyond the text. As I stated, "A simple reading of the verse shows the sealing occurs after hearing and believing." Your contention that "the scriptures are clear that it was done 'and sealed' in our case, thousands of years before we were ever born" has no support in either vs.13 or vs.4 of Ep 1. The phrase in v.4, "chosen before the world was made" (TEV), contemplates (1) believers, not specific individuals, and (2) within the context of purpose, sealing. There is no reference to sealing. 2. You say, "what God 'seals' cannot be 'unsealed'." Well then, it should also hold true to say, "What God 'grafts in' cannot be 'ungrafted'," which flies right smack against Romans 11. 3. That "that no man has ever sought God on his own," is off the subject and has no bearing on this issue. 4. You're appeals to logic seem to be attemps to squeeze a round peg into a square hole, which effectively results in illogical jumps to conclusions that have no bearing on how the text in question actually reads. 5. With all due respect, if this discussion is to go forward, the first three points in my note #187838 need to be answered, which you totally ignored, having gone through some other unrelated avenue of argument. |
||||||
169 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187859 | ||
1. I hadn't discussed church history (whatever happened to sola scriptura?") except for menyioning Acts. That's jumping over the issue. I was discussing how the Bible reads. 2. Neither was I discussing "free will" or the lofty notion of "eternal security". Again, I was discussing the reading of Ep 1:13, the Bible. |
||||||
170 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187861 | ||
We need to resolve the issue of Ep 1:13 as to what it actually reads. You're just clouding the issue with what you call "proof-texts" and conversations between pastors you may have overheard. | ||||||
171 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187927 | ||
WOS, I was responding to what I believe was a misreading in Ep 1:13 made by Ps25. My response is related to the issue of "eternal security" because Ps25 used it as "proof-text" for it. |
||||||
172 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187928 | ||
InGod, Unless I am mistaken, you may have misunderstood how the word "catholic" was used in the early church (at, least for the first 300 years); it did not mean the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. It merely meant "universal", that is, Christians from all over the world. The Church having borders, institutional organization, or denominations was unheard of back then; Christians considered themselves members of a universal (catholic) body. |
||||||
173 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187954 | ||
InGod, 1. Are you assuming that because they are on a Catholic webpage, called saints by the RCC, the fathers of the Church you cited are Roman Catholic? 2. Are you saying that "many Christians" who "were not at all part of the system then known as the church" were the true Christians while those in the "system" were not? Let me just note that: (a) The first 300 years had no "system"; no form of institutional organization existed. (b) The early "universal church" of the first 300 years was not the same as the RCC as it developed after Constantine's rise and as it is today (and I have no idea what you mean by "original"). I think that such an assessment of the early Church, as stated in the last two sentences, is mistaken. To be sure, the RCC laid it's foundation from the early Church, but it drifted far away from early Church teachings in many respects as the Protestant Reformation, in seeking to protest against the abuses of the RCC, went too far the other extreme at certain points; instead of returning to apostolic doctrine and traditions as revealed in the Scriptures and understood by the early Church, the Reformation ended up with their own brand of erroneous teachings, e.g. the subject of free will and predestination. At least, that is my assessment of church history from the little I've read. |
||||||
174 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187955 | ||
InGod, 1. To say, "...the sealing took place before the foundation. Of course the effect of that sealing was after salvation," seems to me just a convenient way in which to manipulate the verse to promote what it does not say. 2. If there is a relation between v.4 and v.13 is that (a) the former reveals the purpose of God having chosen and (b) the latter shows what persons - the "us" - were chosen, namely, those -"you" - who heard and believed. 3. Upon their "hearing" and "believing" God Spirit-sealed them, gave them the Spirit as a foretaste of His glory to be revealed and as a sign that guarantees His faithfulness to fulfill his purpose that they (1) should stand before him holy, and, thereby (2) receive their inheritance. 4. Putting these verses alongside wach other, I also see that what is contemplated in v.4 is God's purposes for believers and in v.13, God's faithfulness toward believers to fulfill His purposes. 5. One can say these are two of the strongest verses in the Bible on God's purposes for and faithfulness towards those who are believing in Christ. 6. As far as a doctrine of "eternal security" is concerned, that is not stated here, nor does it seem to be in the mind of the writer. The doctrine may be true but if it is, as far as I can tell, one will need to look elsewhere for Biblical support to find it. |
||||||
175 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187956 | ||
... | ||||||
176 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187990 | ||
Just out of curiousity...what do my own words say? | ||||||
177 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187991 | ||
I could add many other things I don't deserve... | ||||||
178 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187992 | ||
I can't remember what i stated here. Just curious...did I say something that was deemed to be a "personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum, or seen as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum"? Would it be possible to send the what I stated to my email address and advise me how my response was offensive? I would like to avoid any cause offense in the future. I'm making the best effort to objective. |
||||||
179 | How did Paul die | Phil 1:20 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 199882 | ||
To answer your question, see: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html | ||||||
180 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207935 | ||
Steve, having read only your comment, may I point out something to consider regarding Mt 12:12? I think the point Jesus was making was that, in taking the sheep out of the pit on the sabbath, the person does not break the sabbath law - maybe the letter of the law but not the spirit (that for which the law is intended) -because it is lawful to do what is good on the sabbath. Jesus was saying, "You'd break the sabbath in order to save an animal; why condemn me for breaking the sabbath in order to heal the sick?" Jesus did break or allow the law to be broken. Jesus even condoned David's breaking the law by eating food that was for only the priests. It just may be that the one who lies in order to preserve another's life, although breaking the law with respect to the letter, is nevertheless, not breaking the law with respect to the spirit, that is, it's intention. The "evil" of the lie is meant to bring out a good, that is, the saving of a life. Now, I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, at least, not in general or "let us do 'evil' that good may come of it"; but there are some cases where this proverb may apply. I realize this is a sticky situation to be put in but, for me, if my lie would save one's life, I'll either omit the information or, if pressed, I don't think I'll have any qualms in lying. In general, I agree with you. However, not absolutely everything is "black and white" (as much as we'd like it to be). Just something to think about. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [10] >> |